Eighth Circuit Rejects Effort to Move Trust Breach Claims to Court of Federal Claims

Here is today’s opinion (the third Indian law opinion from the CA8 this week!) in Bernard v. Dept. of Interior:

CA8 Opinion in Bernard v DOI

The briefs:

Bernard Opening Brief

Interior Appellee Brief

Bernard Reply

Excerpts:

Maynard Bernard decided to develop some of the Indian trust land he owned on the Sisseton Wahpeton Reservation in a project planned with his cousin Grady Renville. Bernard and Renville consulted a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) realty officer about how to proceed. She advised Bernard to sign a gift deed to convey the entire property to himself and Renville asjoint tenants with the right of survivorship.  The agency subsequently denied a request by Bernard and his wife Florine to set aside the deed. After an unsuccessful administrative appeal the Bernards brought an action in federal district court against the United States Department of the Interior (the Department) seeking review of the agency  decision and money damages for breach of trust. The Bernards later amended their complaint to eliminate the damage
claim and subsequently settled with Renville, who agreed to deed back some of the land. After the district court affirmed the administrative decision and dismissed the Bernards’ action, they moved to alter the judgment, seeking transfer of their damage claim to the Court of Federal Claims (CFC). The district court denied the motion, and the Bernards appeal. We affirm.

And:

We recognize that the facts of this case are troubling. Apparently on her own initiative, the BIA realty officer advised Bernard to sign a gift deed conveying half of his interest in his entire property to Renville in a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship. In addition she told Bernard that this would be only a “temporary” arrangement based on Renville’s alleged oral assurances, and she permitted Bernard to waive appraisal of his land before the transfer. She also allowed Renville to fill out the gift deed application, apparently because Bernard’s eyesight was so bad he could not do it himself.

Crow Creek Trust Claims Dismissed under Tohono O’odham Decision

Here is the opinion:

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v US

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Crow Creek Sioux Tribe filed this suit on December 29, 2005, seeking damages for Defendant’s breach of fiduciary duties and mismanagement of Plaintiff’s trust corpus. Almost 19 months earlier, on June 2, 2004, Plaintiff had filed a similar case against the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Treasury for declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. Norton, No. 1:04-cv-00900 (D.D.C.).

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) and 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (2006). As set forth below, Plaintiff’s District Court  [2] action is “for or in respect to” the same claim as the instant action and was pending at the time this action was filed. The Court is therefore bound by § 1500 to dismiss Plaintiff’s action.

Kaw Nation Avoids Dismissal of Trust Claims under Tohono O’odham Precedent

Here is the opinion:

DCT Order Denying US Motion

Selected Legal Docs in Custer Battlefield Museum/Christopher Kortlander Controversy

Interesting series of cases about a litigious dude (news coverage):

DCT Order Unsealing Case

Search Warrant Application

Kortlander v BLM FOIA Order

Kortlander v US Complaint

US Motion to Dismiss Kortlander Complaint

Federal Claims Court Rejects Regulatory Takings Claim in On-Reservation Lease Dispute

Here is the opinion in McGuire in United States:

McGuire Opinion

A prior related opinion (denying the govt’s motion for summary J) is here.

Two Shields’ Motion to File Surreply

Here:

RAMONA TWO SHIELDS MOTION 2-10-12

Update in Two Shields Suit: Government’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss

Here is the government’s reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss:

TWO SHIELDS – U.S. REPLY BRIEF (1-26-12)

Two Shields Update — Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Here:

TWO SHIELDS – PlaintiffsRespandOpp1912

The defendants’ motion to dismiss is here.

The complaint is here.

Yakama Nation Housing Authority Trust/Contract Claims against US Survive Motion to Dismiss

Here are the materials in Yakama Nation Housing Authority v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

DCT Order Denying US Motion to Dismiss YNHA Complaint

US Motion to Dismiss YNHA Complaint

Yakama Housing Opposition

US Reply to YNHA Opposition

However, the government has filed a motion for reconsideration:

US Motion for Reconsideration

 

Federal Court Denies Individual Tribal Members Intervention Motion in Round Valley Settlement

Here are those materials in Round Valley Indian Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

DCT Order Denying Lohman Intervention Motion

Lohman Motion to Intervene

RVIT Opposition

Federal Govt Opposition

Lohman Reply

The underlying judgment favoring the tribe is here.